A new building for the graduate school of design and planning, University of Colorado at Denver, Auraria Campus

Material Information

A new building for the graduate school of design and planning, University of Colorado at Denver, Auraria Campus
MacMillan, E. Rand
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
33 leaves : illustrations (some color, some folded), plans (some folded) ; 28 cm


bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaf 33).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Architecture, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
E. Rand MacMillan.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08643416 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A72 1980 .M32 ( lcc )

Full Text

1190 A72

A_Ngw Building For The GRADUATE SCHOOL OF DESIGN AND PLANNING University of Colorado at Denver Auraria Campus f
E. Rand ^MacMillan
Candidate for Master of Architecture University of Colorado at Denver
December, 1980

INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ........................................................ 2
The College of Environmental Design ........................... 2
Relocation: Bromley Building versus
A New GSDP Building............................................. 3
Campus Wide Perspective ....................................... 4
Current Space Deficiencies .................................... 4
Personal Design Philosophy .................................... 6
SITE ANALYSIS...................................................... 7
Historical .................................................... 7
Auraria Higher Education Center Master Plan ................... 7
Site Circulation: Auto....................................... 14
Site Circulation: Bus........................................ 16
Site Circulation: Bicycle ................................... 16
Site Circulation: Pedestrians ............................... 16
Views........................................................ 17
Climate...................................................... 17
Soil ........................................................ 20
PROGRAM........................................................... 24
Proposed Program ............................................. 25
APPLICABLE CODES ................................................. 31

1 Large Scale Context ................................. 4
2 Auraria Before Campus ............................... 8
3 Abstract of AHEC Master Plan....................... 10
4 View of Existing Site............................... 11
5 Existing Site Conditions ........................... 12
6 Future Site Context................................. 13
7 Circulation Analysis of Proposed Site .... 15
8 View Across Site to Northeast....................... 18
9 Views Analysis from Site............................ 19
10 Solar Impacts and Sun Angles........................ 21
11 Wind and Acoustic Analysis.......................... 22
12 Activity Interaction Matrix ........................ 29
13 Activity Relationship Diagram ...................... 30

Among the most exciting design challenges is the problem of creating a facility to house designers themselves. An educational facility for architects and planners implies the opportunity to make a strong statement about the interaction of task, form, and technics. One might expect that designers are especially well prepared to solve the special problems they confront on a daily basis. However, architecture being an art form, an inexact science, implies a multitude of possible responses to a given program. Consequently, the buildings that house schools of architecture are subjected to some of the most intensive first-hand criticism from the specially educated residents within. The proposed relocation of the Graduate School of Design and Planning (GSDP) to the main Auraria campus embodies all these risks and potential benefits.
Through this thesis, I will attempt to interpret the future needs of the design school and temper it with my personal design philosophy.
One of the main goals of this project is to create a dialogue within the school at large which addresses what the school can and should be; physically and philosophically. This discussion, to involve the other three students who share this program as well as the students and faculty of the school at large, is a crucial ideation stage. A new GSDP very likely will be built. Consequently, the school must develop and express some consensus to the university regents and the state legislators about what the essence of the school is beyond a square footage allocation.

The College of Environmental Design
The College of Environmental Design (CED) within the University of Colorado originated as a five-year program on the Boulder campus.
The current CED is unique in that it is the only Colorado school that houses all five major design disciplines: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Planning, Urban Design and Interior Design under one roof. The importance of the school is amplified by its geographic location. The mountain states region is experiencing accelerated growth and environmental development. The challenge to architects and planners regarding the built environment is overwhelming. The recent creation of the Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden and the Denver office building boom underscore the exciting context in which the design school finds itself.
In 1976, the graduate program was moved to the Denver campus of the University of Colorado in order to closely associate itself with practicing design and planning professionals. The transfer was a strong step toward integration with the "real world" and has lead to the school's reputation for a pragmatic curricula that deals in energy, environmental, and economic realities. The Center for Community Development and Design (CCDD) is illustrative of CED's community service orientation. The CCDD is a branch of the school that draws on the student and faculty resources of all five divisions in order to provide technical assistance to communities and individuals with real design problems. CCDD has provided valuable services throughout the state on such projects as: a land use study for Jamestown in rural eastern Colorado, a health center in Hayden, on the Western Slope, to small neighborhood projects such as the Inner City Parish remodeling and solar retrofit.
School projects often parallel those in progress in the real world if they don't actually contribute to them. Involvement of practicing architects, landscape architects, and planners in school affairs is healthy as they serve on juries and as technical resources.
Another strong link to the community is the proportion of CED students who work part time in design firms and planning agencies which

are concentrated in the metropolitan area. Seventy-six percent of students are simultaneously employed, a factor that is indicative of the maturity and career orientation of the average UCD student. Among design schools nationally, this close community interaction distinguishes the graduate program of the College of Environmental Design in Denver.
As the prospect of the UCD-CED relocation is discussed, the institutional framework for the college is also being reconsidered. With the move to Denver, the graduate and undergraduate branches of CED have had diminished interaction and fewer common processes and orientations. The proposed Graduate School of Design and Planning would be managed by its own dean, would be budgeted for separately and would have only minor ties such as faculty sharing with the Boulder campus.
Just as CED seeks its own institutional identity, a strong, visible, community oriented identity is a priority that must be upheld throughout the proposed relocation process.
Bromley Building versus A New GSDP Building
Relocation of any school or business is a major disrupting event that has numerous physical and economic consequences. What are the underlying assumptions and logic behind leaving the current Bromley Building in favor of a new facility? First of all, there are several good qualities about the present CED site. The downtown location at 14th and Lawrence has strong community interaction advantages due to its proximity to professionals. Many students and faculty like the ambience of the Bromley Building which dates from the 1880's as a former pharmaceutical warehouse.
The masonry work on the street facades, the cornice, and the heavy timber construction are reminders of the type of craftsmanship that is almost a "lost art" in the vernacular of modern architecture. The large north windows, high ceilings, and views of the city skyline make Bromley's adaptation to a design studio most appropriate. Nevertheless, the current building has many functional drawbacks and limitations.

Campus Wide Perspective
The logic of relocating UCD and CED evolves from a perspective of the Auraria Higher Education Center as a whole. This campus is unique nationally in that three educational institutions, MSC, CCD, and UCD share many common facilities such as the library and gym. A strong community and vocational orientation is common to all three.
The "campus," however, effectively ends at Speer Boulevard on the north. UCD and CED are effectively isolated by ten lanes of dangerous highspeed traffic. The traffic hazard and the quarter-mile distance psychologically separate UCD from any feeling of being a part of the campus. The street scape around UCD is urban and hostile in contrast to the traffic-free, generously landscaped spaces of the Auraria campus that opened in 1976. The south entrance to the Bromley Building is a deplorable landscape of cars, mud, and blinding sun without even a twig of vegetation. This site has been the subject of numerous landscape architecture studios that have attempted to Figure 1 enhance the school's image. The logic
of uniting UCD and the College of Environmental Design with the Auraria campus on available land is compelling from the large scale perspective. With regard to space availability and coordination, the advantages of such a relocation are also strong.
Current Space Deficiencies
The functional organization of the current Bromley Building has many deficiencies. Most notable is the lack of classroom and lecture space. Classes are held in the adjacent East Classroom Building in windowless rooms. These rooms are poorly ventilated and are not well

suited for audio visual presentations, not to mention that interior columns obstruct sightlines. Large gatherings such as for guest lectures require that space be borrowed in the Science Building during left over time slots.
Planning Studio is isolated from the other disciplines in the basement rather than visibly sharing in the personal exchange and graphic interest that occurs in the architecture/!andscape architecture studios. Exhibit and jury space is inadequate or poorly defined. Support shops such as model building and the darkroom are fragmented throughout the building and generally lack adequate space or a good functional relationship to the studios. Faculty office space is also in short supply and is scattered throughout the building.
The library suffers severe acoustical, lighting and comfort problems. Its location on the southwest conflicts with the lighting needs for reading because of intense direct sunlight. Also, the southwest exposure spoils the library further due to overheating. An inadequate HVAC system results in unacceptable sound transmission between adjacent classrooms and offices to the library. A resource so fundamental to the school deserves a comfortable, well tempered environment.
The student lounge is rarely used because it is windowless and isolated from the studios. It fails as a facilitator of student interaction, an important social function in a non-resident college, especially among design students, where informal exchange is so important to the creative process.
The entry sequence also is awkward since the reception and administration are on the second level, a situation that confuses many visitors. The CCDD is appropriately close to the entry; however, its staff frequently needs to redirect disoriented visitors.
Overall, the Bromley Building is overcrowded with no room for expansion. The studio space is perhaps the best adapted activity in the building; other activities find themselves where they can. Fragmentation best describes the six-floor layout, although the building is acceptable.
A major remodeling and addition could ameliorate some of the spatial prob-

lems of this likeable building. However, in view of the campus at large and the awkwardness of the current building, I believe that a new building, tailored to the GSDP's specific needs, constitutes a preferable alternative.
Personal Design Philosophy
My personal attitude toward the Graduate School of Design and Planning is that it should be expressive of the activities within: It should look like a school of design where the studios, for example, are decernable from the exterior. Community orientation is another priority that the GSDP should respond to. This implies that it be on the campus perimeter that is adjacent to downtown. It should be visible to visitors. Likewise, downtown, as a symbol of "community," should be viewable by the students and faculty. The current location in the Bromley Building does this so well, and I intend to retain this orientation. The high ceilings and cool, natural light of the Bromley studios is another quality that should be maintained in the new facility. Well controled, natural and artificial light is crucial for such visually oriented activities, so the school itself should serve to demonstrate excellence in lighting.
Clarity of organization is important for a public building as it is for my personal design attitude. Circulation, therefore, should be straightforward. Clarity of structure can also complement one's perception of a building, so I intend to be honest and expressive of the materials and structural system.
Climatic response is a by-word of progressive architecture and of the school's philosophy. The building's exterior skin, its fenestration, and its mechanicle system should be appropriately matched with local climatic influences.
The aesthetic character of the school will evolve from the pre-ceeding objectives. A design school by its very nature must exhibit a controlled orchestration of scale, color, and proportion. The GSDP building is the catalyst within which current thinking about the built environment is evolving. It should be recognizable as the place where designers and planners assemble; where the arts and sciences merge.

The site I have selected for the proposed GSDP is on available state owned land on the main Auraria campus. It is bordered by Speer Boulevard on the northeast, Larimer Street on the northwest, Lawrence Street on the southeast, and the AHEC Physical Education Building on the southwest. (Figure #1). Relocating UCD and the current College of Environmental Design to this site will effectively unite the school with the main campus and the ancillary facilities on which students depend, such as the library.
This site is near the origin of the City at the confluence of the Platte River and Cherry Creek. The town of Auraria (where the campus got its name) grew up on the south side of Cherry Creek while "Denver City" evolved on the north bank. Being so close to Cherry Creek, the site was ravaged by floods several times. Auraria was later incorporated into Denver and became a stable middle to upper class neighborhood as the Ninth Street Historic Park graciously reminds us. By the turn of the century, Auraria had changed into a predominantly Hispanic, working class district mixed with light industry (Figure #2). St. Cajetan's Church is one of the few remaining landmarks of that parish. The 1950's and 1960's saw deterioration in the viability of the neighborhood for reasons common to most inner city housing. Consequently, in 1972, voters approved a 42 million dollar bond issue which created the Auraria Higher Education Center. This resulted in the full demolition of the neighborhood except for three churches, fourteen 9th Street houses, and the Tivoli Brewery. The existing campus, completed in 1975, represents the third or fourth generation of building on the site.
AHEC Master Plan
The firm of C.F. Murphy and Associates developed a campus master plan to guide development for the three institution complex. Briefly, it maintained the existing street grid that has its numbered streets run-

ning NW-SE at 31 west of north. The main reason for keeping this grid is attributable to the utilities system that was in place under the streets. A 30-foot X 30-foot planning grid was superimposed parallel to the street grid to serve as the basis for development of the new campus buildings. This planning unit has been strictly adhered to, as it is also a very economical structural buy size. The 30 X 30 grid may strongly influence the organization of the proposed GSDP building. Vertical levels are planned in five-foot increments with an overall height limit of fifty-five feet, except for the St. Elizabeth's steeple.
The general campus concept designated perimeter parking lots on the western edge of campus and in the northern corner. Pedestrian malls criss cross the campus, while auto traffic is held to the perimeter. (Figure 3). The Learning Resources Center (library) logically occupies the heart of the campus. It is bracketed by the academic buildings to the south and by student related services (gym, bookstore, cafeteria) on the north. Open space is preserved along Cherry Creek and Speer Boulevard on the northeast edge. The proposed UCD-GSDP site was intended as open space and was called the "Auraria Green" in the master plan. In actuality, the two-block site provides surface parking for 900 autos, constituting a visual blight but a necessary evil for a non-resident campus of 35,000 students. (Figure 4). Unfortunately, this key segment of the campus that is situated between Auraria and downtown is a hostile wasteland that heavy pedestrian traffic must traverse to reach the existing isolated UCD (Figure 5). Development of it has the potential of eliminating an urban vacuum in favor of a landscaped, inhabited structure that completes the missing link between campus and the downtown community.
The UCD relocation now under discussion will involve a 50,000 square foot addition to the Science Building and a 200,000 square foot allocation for the remaining UCD facilities (including CED) on the block southwest of 12th Street (Figure 6).
I strongly feel that the GSDP, constituting about 60,000 square feet (see program) should be a separate building or a distinct wing of a larger UCD building mass. Therefore, I am planning for a separate mass


Site looking south. Fiaure 4

Auraria Higher Education Center
8 9
Warehouse Public Safety Physical Plant Tivoli Browary Student Cantor Physical Education Emmanuel Art Gallery SL Cajatan Church Education
Learning Resources Center Science Arts
Central Classroom MSC Administration St. Elizabeth Church Ecumenical Center Ninth Street Park
18 Child Development Center
19 Child Care Center
20 Technology
21 CCD Administration
22 UCD Administration East Classroom Bromley
16 17
Existing campus and traffic conditions. Figure 5

Future site context. Figure 6

containing the GSDP on the block northeast of 12th where it is closest to downtown and where it helps frame the open space corridor along Cherry Creek. The northern side of the site will remain for future expansion for university facilities as needed.
The urban design character of Auraria is essentially a low lying, horizontal aesthetic in contrast to the dense masses of downtown which step up to heights in excess of 400 feet. The GSDP building should be compatible with its Auraria context though it need not strictly conform to its neighbors' horizontality or to their maroon colored masonry. Further, this proposal assumes that Lawrence and Larimer Streets will be relocated to the northwest edge of campus, thereby creating the opportunity for more humane pedestrian linkage.
Site Circulation
Being non-residents, the 35,000 Auraria students depend heavily on the automobile, bus, and bicycle for commuting to classes. There are in excess of 4,600 parking spaces on the campus covering about fourteen city blocks of land. Development of the Lawrence-Larimer site will eliminate 900 of those spaces on two blocks. This suggests that a multi-story parking garage may need to be developed if that parking is to be replaced. I am assuming that structured parking will be developed on the lot north of Larimer between 12th Street and Speer. This strategy, together with the aforementioned relocation of traffic on Lawrence and Larimer to the Market-Blake Parkway will bring to fuition the original concept of holding parking to the north and west perimeter of the campus while eliminating disruptive through auto traffic (Figure 7). 12th Street already will be vacated between Lawrence and Arapahoe in order to allow for landscaped open space on the remaining triangular parcel. Without traffic on Lawrence and Larimer, the usefulness of 12th Street is diminished; therefore, I am assuming 12th Street will be vacated northwest to Larimer. This favorable development will enhance the UCD-GSDP site.

Circulation analysis of proposed site. Figure 7

Noise and air pollution associated with the heavy traffic volumes on Speer Boulevard will continue to impact the site. A generous setback with earth berms and sound absorbing vegetation would be an appropriate landscape treatment for the northwest site boundary.
Students depend heavily on RTD bus service, which includes eight routes on the current Lawrence/Larimer alignment. Relocating the bus routes to the proposed parkway would create too long a walking distance, negating its convenience. Provision for on-campus bus access, operating both directions on the Larimer Street alignment would maintain convenient transit access as a viable alternative to driving.
Many students and employees bicycle to Auraria. Bicycle access to the campus has greatly improved this year with the completion of the Cherry Creek Channel Bikeway, a high quality, grade separate facility that connects the campus with neighborhoods and employment. There are access ramps at Curtis Street and at Market Street near the site; consequently bicycle paths should connect them with the proposed UCD building. Ample, well designed bicycle parking should also be planned for near the entrance to the new buildings so that bicycles do not cause unnesessary clutter or impede pedestrians.
With the relocation of traffic on Lawrence Street, this corridor can logically be developed as a pedestrian mall which connects the library and student center with the UCD-GSDP complex. This design strategy will complete the campus pedestrian circulation system that currently falls apart at Lawrence Street. A separate path for bicycles and delivery trucks should be set aside to avoid conflicts. A safe pedestrian crossing of Speer Boulevard needs to be created northeast toward Larimer Square,

in addition to the one already planned at Curtis Street which leads to the Galleria. Pedestrian access through the site to the parking garage also needs to be addressed.
V i ews
A distinguishing aspect of this perimeter site is its views. Clear, inspiring views of the dynamic downtown skyline are available to the north and east. The foreground is landscaped with trees lining Speer Boulevard together with the generous green open spaces between campus and the Denver Center complex, whose concave Galleria accents this bold urban edge (Figures 3 & 9). Ths site has strong "imageability" as Kevin Lynch would say, and the GSDP can complete the frame for this grand outdoor space. The omnipresent mountain view is available to the west across the playing fields and to the southwest down Lawrence Street. Only the view due north is mediocre, which suggests why structured parking should go there, if anywhere. Warm southern exposure and a view of the campus characterizes the south side of the site. The Lawrence corridor should protect solar access, despite the proposed three-story Science Building addition.
Denver is famous for its excellent climate, which is an important factor governing architectural response. About 5,000 degree days of heating are required annually while only ten percent of that, or 740 cooling degree days are needed in summer. Distinguished elements of Denver's climate are its altitude (5,280 feet) and its location in a semi-arid rainshadow east of the Rocky Mountains. Average annual precipitation is a low fifteen and one-half inches while relative humidity averages 60 percent in the AM and 40 percent in the PM. The altitude and low humidity contribute to the high diurnal temperature swing (about 30 degrees day to night) which is a favorable factor with respect to passive cooling strategies. Heavy masonry construction could delay summer heat gain through most of the day and release it at night.

Figure 8: View Across Site to Northeast

Figure 9

The high availability of sunshine (70 percent) contributes to excellent active and passive solar heating potential and is one reason that solar research and industry is concentrated in this region.
Summer sun is especially intense from the west and should be avoided for reasons of comfort and lighting control (Figure 10). Also, winter sun from the south has potential solar gain benefits, but its low angle makes direct sunlight hard to control for the purpose of natural task lighting. Consequently, studio and office space should take advantage of north and east exposures which are complementary with the views analysis.
Winds are another climatic resource that could be used for cooling and ventilation. Mild prevailing breezes are from the south, especially in the summer (Figure 11). Precipitation is usually carried on "upslope" winds from the east and northeast. The most intense winds, up to 65 mph, come from the west, usually in the winter. These west winds are often warm, dry Chinook gusts that can melt several inches of snow in a day, but they can also damage trees and buildings.
Summer precipitation usually occurs in afternoon thunder showers, some of which can be extremely intense (design storm = 6"/hour X 5 minutes). Hail frequently accompanies these storms and must be considered in the design of windows and skylights.
Cherry Creek would typically swell out of its banks as a result of these storms and submerge the site. However, the recent Cherry Creek Channel Improvements insure an unimpeded floodway, thus excluding the site from the 100-year flood plain.
The surface geology of the site is characterized by about five feet of unstable man-made fill due to the several generations of previous buildings. Below that lies about fifteen feet of medium dense sand and gravel that was deposited by Cherry Creek. Stable claystone bedrock is

Sun Angles and Shadows
Figure 10 -21-

Wind and Acoustic Analysis Figure 11

encountered at depths of 10-20 feet. The water table averages about 13 feet below the surface, but rises in wet years because of the proximity (200 feet) of Cherry Creek.
The engineers' report suggests that drilled piers to the clay-stone, which has a bearing strength of 30,000-60,000 psf would be the preferred construction. For ground floors, either the loose, man-made fill should be excavated for a slab or grade, or else a structural floor system should be used. Because of soil and water problems, basements are not recommended.

Since relocation of the Collage of Environmental Design has been officially proposed, preparation of a program for the new facility is now in progress. In developing a program for the proposed Graduate School of Design and Planning, I have derived space allocations from three sources; 1) existing square footage in the Bromley Building, 2) a program for a new CED building used during summer 1980 design studio, and 3) the official draft space allocations for the proposed GSDP facility.
While there are discrepancies from subsection to subsection, the last two sources yield a gross square footage of between 55,000-60,000. Significant additions beyond current facilities include much needed classroom and lecture space, exhibit space, an expanded library and a ten percent overall increase in studio, offices, and administration. I have synthesized this data into a realistic program that suits the needs of this individual project. Changes may arise as the official school program is finalized, in which case I will consider them in the schematic design phase.
Certain divisions of the GSDP may need to expand in a second phase beyond the initial relocation. I will address this issue in terms of the building's interior flexibility and ability to expand onto available adjacent land. However, for the purpose of this design study, I will assume the following space allocations as adequate for the immediate future.

Proposed Program
Graduate School of Design and Planning Randy MacMillan, 12-15-80
Space and Description:
Sq. Ft.
Arch 50%, LA 20%, Planning 10%
Interiors 15%, Urban Design 5% (flexible)
50 sq. ft./Student + Lockers
Seminar/Jury: 5 spaces @ 500
Combine two into one 1,000 sq. ft.
Audio Visual capacity, tackboards, chalkborads
3 small classrooms/35 students X 20 = 700
combine two into one 1,400
1 large classroom/lecture hall 3,500
full fixed seating in tiers, A/V capacity
20 faculty X 110 2,200
5 directors X 180 900
10 visiting colleagues X 80 800
faculty lounge 250
Dean 180
Administrative Assistant 150
3 Secretaries X 125 375

Administrative, continued:
Reception/Waiting 250
Records/Work Room 350
Conference 500
CCDD: 1,950
Director 150
Offices 4 X 100 400
Staff 2 X 125 250
Project Stations - 15 X 50 750
Waiting 125
Records 150
Conference 150
Library: 3,600
2 Offices X 125 250
Check-out Desk 500
Stacks, reading area, study tables
Exhibit: 2,000
Tack boards, moveable partitions
Support Facilities: 9,800
Audio-Visual/Photo 500 l
Dark Room 800 b
Sound Studio 200 -2.-3
Model Shop 3,000 I
Computer/Photogrametry 500 2-3
Research Labs 6 X 250 1,500
Technician Offices - 3 X 100 300 11-3
Laminations 200 2,-3
Archives 3,000

Student Lounge: Kitchenette, Vending Machines Tables, Sofas, Deck 500
Restrooms: Including Showers Handicapped Stall 1,200
Storage: 1,000
SUB-TOTAL: 46,305
Circulation @ 30%: 13,900
Mech @ 19%: 600
60,800 gross square feet

Assuming this program fulfills space requirements, the next problem that should be addressed is the functional relationship of these activities. This aspect constitutes the greatest deficiency of the Bromley Building and must be overcome in a new facility. First, the importance of spacial proximity must be gauged (Figure 12).
By focusing on the "very important" relationships, one can begin to build a conceptual layout of the building (Figure 13). The studios, which might be considered the heart of the school, need a very strong relationship to the jury space, faculty offices, support shops, and the lounge. Faculty offices need a close affiliation with classrooms, seminar/jury, and administration as well as with studio. The need for the staff of the Center for Community Development and Design to work closely with the administration is also very important.
The library is essential for all the functions of the school, however close proximity is not necessary. In view of its special need for quiet, some separation from the mainstream of circulation and activity may be an advantage. The administration is the "front door" of the school since it frequently deals with visitors and contains reception. Consequently, it should be easy to find from the entry. The same is true for CCDD which is very "outside world" oriented. It needs proximity to the entry and to administration.
Exhibit space can show off the school's vitality best if close to the entry. This space might also overflow into circulation leading to CCDD, administration studio and the library for added visual interest.

* Orientation
[\| north, S- south, unimportant
** Acoustics:
L., loud, Q- quiet,----unimportant
Relationship: -|* **Very important O Important Not Important

Acoustical qualities are another factor that may affect proximity. Care should be taken so that conflicting sound requirements are minimized, either through spatial isolation or soundproof construction.
Natural lighting requirements, which will be a major consideration, will also be a factor in organizing the spaces in terms of the compass points and desired views.
These diagrams will form the basis for development of a schematic design. Alternative designs will be tested against these charts to ascertain how successfully they achieve a fluidity of comfortable working relationships.
Figure 13

A large public building such as the Graduate School of Design and Planning must conform to a series of strict building and fire codes: Here is a summary of the jurisdictional prerequisites that the building must conform to:
The building falls under the jurisdiction of the Denver Building Code; however, being on state-owned land, it is not subject to city zoning provisions. Minimum lot size, lot to building square foot ratios, property line set backs, and off-street parking requirements are not applicable. The Auraria campus has a self-imposed height limit of 55 feet. The site bounded by Lawrence Street, Larimer Street, 12th Street and Speer Boulevard falls within Fire Zone II. The occupancy classification is A-3 (UBC Table 5-A). Construction should be of Type II; steel, concrete, or masonry (Sec. 1901). Exterior walls should have a 2-hour rating, if less than five feet from an adjacent building, or one hour otherwise. Exterior wall openings are not permitted less than five feet and must be protected less than ten feet. The structural frame must be made of non-combustible materials. Floors must have a one-hour fire rating (Sec. 1901); roofs, one hour (Sec. 1906); interior partitions, one hour (Sec. 1903). Group A occupancies shall be sprinkled throughout (Table 38-A). Each floor shall have at least two exits other than the elevator; therefore two stairs are required (Table 33-A).
Stairs shall be not less than 44-inches and shall have a 44-inch landing each twelve feet of vertical travel (Sec. 3305). Stairs and balconies should be equipped with hand rails between 30 inches and 34 inches which extend six inches beyond the end of the stairs, and shall include an intermediate hand rail each 88 inches of width (Sec. 3305). Risers should be at least four inches, but not more than lh inches vertical. Treads should be at least 10 inches (Sec. 3305c).
Ramps shall be at least 44 inches wide and may not exceed a slope of 1 to 12 for the handicapped (Sec. 3306). They shall have a landing of at least five feet for each five feet of vertical rise and shall be surfaced with non-slip material.

Doors shall be at least 32 inches clear width and shall swing 90 degrees in the direction of travel (Sec. 3303). Corridors shall be not less than 44 inches clear width or equal to the occupant load divided by 50 in feet, whichever is greater (Sec. 3304). Distance to the nearest exist shall be not more than 200 feet in a sprinklered building (Sec. 3313). Dead-end corridors shall not exceed 20 feet (Sec. 3304).
Vertical openings in floors shall have a one-hour fire rate continuous barrier with openings fire stopped (Sec. 4305). Exit signs will be installed above exits with at least six inch letters and exit lighting shall be maintained at one-foot candle or more along the path of egrees (Sec. 3312).
Ceilings shall be at least seven feet high (Sec. 3304). Mezzanines are restricted to not more than 33-1/3 percent coverage of a room's area and are limited to one per room (Sec. 1904).
Occupied rooms should have a window area of at least ten percent of the floor area. Ventilation shall be available from vents of at least five percent of the floor area or at the rate of 15 cubic feet per minute, including at least 5 cfm of outside air.
Buildings four stories or more shall have a stairway to the roof (Sec. 3305). Skylights shall be of non-combustible material and set on a four-inch curb. The area shall not exceed 100 square feet within the curb for a plastic dome (Sec, 5207).
At least one toilet for each sex shall be provided on each floor including at least one stall accessible by the handicapped for each five floors. Water closets shall be at least 30 inches wide by 48 inches deep, and 60 inches by 60 inches for the handicapped.
Public buildings shall be fully accessible to the handicapped by means of elevator or by ramps not to exceed 1:12 (Sec. 3305).

A-5 Denver Inc., Master Plan for the Auraria Higher Education Center, Denver, Colorado 1973.
Byrd, Kenneth, Program for a New Facility, "A planning document for a new facility to house the University of Houston Art and Architecture Departments," 1979.
Denver Building Code: 1979.
Denver Division of Traffic Engineering, "Traffic Counts for Arterial Streets and Highways," 1980.
Lawrence, Attilla, "Space Deficiencies for the College of Environmental Design," (Draft), November, 1980.
Merrick & Company, Engineers, The Cherry Creek Channel Improvements, Denver, 1977.
The Metropolitan, "City Gives Up 12th Street," student publication, Metropolitan State College, Denver, 9-12-80, page 4.
Prosser, John, "Studio Program for a New College of Environmental Design," July, 1980.
Rocky Mountain News, "19 Million Plan To Move UCD To Auraria OK'd,"
Pamela Avery, 11-14-80, page 4.
Uniform Building Code, 1979.
U.S. Weather Bureau, "Standard Statistical Climatic Summary for Denver, Colorado," 1979.
Woodward, Clyde, Sherard and Associates, Consulting Soil Engineers and Geologists, "Subsoil Investigation of Auraria Site for Metropolitan State College," 1967.
Interviews with William Taber and members of the staff of the Auraria Physical Plant.



Reflected Ceiling Rian
>&" l!o"

SECTION: 'a"-V-0